the laws of thermodynamics disagree with the big bang theory?

[Jesus is Lord!]

the first law of thermodynamics states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. the second law proves that the universe had a beginning. how did the big bang "magically" create matter and energy? God did it because He can do anything.
and since the big bang is wrong, that means evolution is also wrong. they both require millions of years.
if all the matter came from energy, where did the energy come from. the second law proves that everything had a beginning.
hello?! the universe had a beginning!

[M?tt]

The big bang theory says the universe was small and more dense when it was created, it is now larger and less dense, there is no energy or matter being created or destroyed.

The second law says that entropy increases over time for a system that is not in equilibrium like the universe. You should go back and take a look at these concepts before you make harsh generalizations that are completely unfounded.

The second law as nothing to do with 'everything has a beginning'

[Morningfoxnorth]

Among other things, I think you misunderstand the "laws" of thermodynamics. They are not at the same status as other laws of physics, like the speed of light. They are general observations about very large groups of things, like molecules or atoms. The standard 3 laws of thermodynamics do not apply to quantum systems, where there are very few things, like a few 1000 quarks or electrons.

At the very beginning, the universe was one thing -- one particle. Ordinary thermodynamic calculations did not apply to the early universe until it had split into many billions of particles, and quantum interactions were no longer were the main thing happening, and things slowed down to a small fraction of light speed.

[sciencebase]

When you say millions, I think you mean billions. The earth is several billion years old, the universe several times older than that.

Can you answer a question, do people believe in the superstition and fairy tales that are creationist theories because they are scared of death and fancy that a god having created the universe may preserve a place for them in some heavenly domain when they die? Is that essentially what all this ID nonsense boils down to?

[Brant]

Your premise is one I don't completely disagree with. And I'm sure I'm not alone, as scientists have been scrambling around trying to overcome this fundamental objection of apparent contradiction to the laws of physics.

However, there are some points you make which don't follow. The difficulty with the enigma of the Big Bang has nothing to do with abiogenesis or evolution. There is nothing about these which seems to violate physical laws, (despite the ill-informed claims of creationists about entropy, new information, etc.). Evolution is a fact and the evidence for it is overwhelming. We know a great deal about the natural history of the earth and the biblical story is PROVEN to be breathtakingly incorrect.

The universe is a difficult, if not impossible thing to conceive in its totality or at its extremes. We see what appears to be invariant laws of physics, but we can't say that the universe itself followed them. Just everything *in* it.

It's a huge jump to assume there was a God that made it all. Once upon a time, people had no idea what lightning was, so it fell into the realm of God miracles. Also the tides, the stars, the nature of the sun, light, conscience, life, and the list goes on and on. In every corner of inquiry we have found the real and natural reasons for things. God explanations were no longer needed.

The very beginning of the universe is the one and only place left for your God. Be happy. No scientist will ever be able to prove otherwise, in my opinion. I think the exact origin of the universe is utterly unknowable. However, after seeing God expelled from virtually every other phenomenon in nature, it is presumptions at best, to assume you are right about this one.

[A.Mercer]

You do realize that E=MC^2 is the equation used to convert matter to energy or vice versa. Energy is created from matter in fusion reactions all the time. The mass of the sun is getting smaller by the second because its mass is being converted to energy. Maybe you should do some research about physics and learn some of these things.

Your second argument about evolution is completely ridiculous. Lets say for argument that your first question turned out to be valid. That does not disprove the age of the universe at all. You would need to come up with a whole new argument to handle that one. That was a leap of logic with Superman proportions.

You say that the universe has a beginning. Ok. How does that prove a creator? What is your evidence to back that up? Remember, please provide something scientific.

[gizmo]

while i do give credit to the big bang. take a look at the astronomical odds for evolution to occur, i mean the chances of that one singled cell bacteria having the right conditions to form. c'mon.

[Michael Steen]

Gizmo, it doesn't matter what the odds against it were. We're here. It happened.
If someone wins $300 million in the lottery when there was a 1 in 120 million chance against it, we don't say that the odds were so long that it couldn't have happened. That's stupid. It did happen; he won. Case closed.

[Celestron]

well if the universe came from a particle, where did the particle come from? who can give a good explanation for THAT? the only thing that makes sense is that Jesus IS Lord, and that the big bang theory
is like, BIZARRE!!

Logging off, Celestron

[Vinnie]

Moderators note: This is a touchy thread and I don't want to see it degenerate. Astronomy Forum.net is just that, an astronomy forum, and this board is about the big bang theory, not about creationism, or atheism, or any form of theology or religion, belief or lack thereof.